Monday, January 17, 2011

At the Austin Statesman today, Tony Plohetski published a story about the results of arbitration in Austin ("In punishment disputes, police, fire officials fared well," Jan. 17) when police and fire employees are fired or denied promotions under the state civil service code. Combining the two groups, writes Plohetski, "When Austin police officers and firefighters have disputed their punishment and taken their cases to outside arbitration, employees have lost that battle more frequently than not, an American-Statesman review of city records shows."

However, looking solely at police officers, "Arbitrators have upheld 10 of the 23 police disciplinary cases that officers have appealed since Acevedo came to Austin in July 2007." So the chief's disciplinary decisions were upheld just 43% of times officers appealed. The number swayed more in the favor of the fire chief, where just 2 of 13 serious disciplinary actions were appealed - one was upheld and one is pending.

For whatever reason, the numbers in the story don't quite add up. If arbitrators upheld 43% of police disciplinary actions, I don't understand how the Statesman claims "employees have lost that battle more frequently than not." Perhaps the inclusion of pending cases explains the difference, but on its face the 10 of 23 figure seems not to jibe with the story's lede.

Notably, a recent Texas Supreme Court case made it more likely fired officers will get reinstated with minimal punishment. "Last year, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that in firing cases, arbitrators can only reinstate officers without issuing discipline, uphold the termination or decrease the punishment to suspensions of 15 days or less."

Also of particular concern is the inability of police managers to promote who they want - instead, their decision by law can only consider the results of a standardized test and the officers' tenure. A past history of misconduct is not among the list of reasons promotions can be denied, and both the police and fire chiefs in Austin "have lost each time they've tried to withhold promotions from those who had otherwise met criteria to move up a rank. Arbitrators found they lacked enough reason."

One of the first criminal justice reform ideas I (unsuccessfully) helped push at the Legislature a decade or so ago was to fix this provision about police promotions. In 2001, then Rep. (now state senator) Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa carried a bill that would have allowed consideration of sustained incidents of misconduct along with tenure and test scores (HB 3492 - 77th session) when deciding promotions under the civil service code. It died in the House Urban Affairs Committee, where police unions enjoy loads of clout. But I continue to think this is an area where chiefs need more authority.

Looking back at a fact sheet developed in support of that 2001 bill, a prime example cited for why the law was needed was the case of former Austin police officer Hector Polanco, who was fired by APD after allegedly coercing false confessions (including in the Christopher Ochoa/Richard Danziger DNA exoneration case) and lying to the chief. He was later reinstated, took the Lieutenants exam and was promoted. Another example from that 2001 fact sheet: "APD Lieutenant Juan Gonzales became Captain after he’d had a sustained excessive force charge and another sustained allegation that he’d used departmental computers to do private investigator research for a law firm. Later he was made head of APD Internal Affairs, and after that promoted again to Commander."

This has been an issue for a long time. The same thing happens among firefighters; even promotions to top management slots can't be derailed by sustained misconduct allegations. From the Statesman:

[Austin Fire Chief Rhoda] Kerr withheld the promotion of a captain to battalion chief last year, saying that he had a history that included lying and shoplifting and that he failed to "live up to a promise to be better."

But ... the arbitrator reversed her decision, saying that previous chiefs had promoted him and that the firefighter had not offended again.

So thanks to the state civil service code, lying and stealing simply aren't enough to keep police and firefighters from being promoted even to the highest management slots. Can you imagine any other job where that is true? And shouldn't cops, of all people, be held to a higher standard?

20 comments:

Anonymous
said...

"So thanks to the state civil service code, lying and stealing simply aren't enough to keep police and firefighters from being promoted even to the highest management slots. Can you imagine any other job where that is true? And shouldn't cops, of all people, be held to a higher standard?"

"It died in the House Urban Affairs Committee, where police unions enjoy loads of clout."

And in the last quote lies the answer. It's not because of the state's civil service law that these kind of employees get to keep their jobs.

The police and fire folks have constructed little kingdoms where they can high salaries and fat pensions without oversight or review. In most Texas cities, if each town abolished their fire departments, let houses burn and wrote a check for the appraised amount they would SAVE money.

That's any easy one. Lawyers. All lawyers in Texas have an obligation to maintain a high standard of ethical conduct toward their clients and others but even when they don't, often times they are still allowed to practice despite being punished in the form of reprimand or suspension.

A lot of these civil service reinstatements might probably be mute issues if these agencies would start filing criminal charges when the elements of a criminal offense are present. And prosecutors when then have to carry their end once the charge(s) are filed.

Sure...school teachers, college professors, any member of the UAW or AFL-CIO. What's up with the anti-labor diatribe today, Grits? This is a little out of character and contrary to your normal left wing missives.

12:31, I've been making this same argument publicly since the mid-'90s, but I'm not surprised it confuses you. Perhaps instead of trying to pigeonhole every statement into predetermined (not to mention ahistorical, ignorant and false) labels, you should try confronting arguments on their merits?

The whole "left" and "right" ideological divide is terminology that stems from the French Revolution. It has little to do with modern political disputes except for people with little imagination like yourself who can't think of the world on its own terms but must rely on 220 year old cliches which do more to prop up the feeble-minded than enlighten discussion.

BTW, Scott, thanks for the information. I hadn't ever thought to look up the origin of "left/right". Here is an excerpt from Britannica blog: "The terms originated in the National Assembly of 1789, when the royalist members sat on the right side of the chamber and the antiroyalists sat opposite them. Within months even French politics was too complex for the simple left-v.-right analysis to be of any use (a dilemma ultimately solved by diverting everyone’s attention, and most of their bodies, to the Napoleonic wars), but the rest of us have been stuck with this folly ever since.

One admitted advantage of the system, and probably the chief reason it has persisted, is that it is so easy for the simple-minded to grasp and to use. For many people, political maturity consists in memorizing which one of those labels means “us” and which one means “stupid, corrupt, conniving, subhuman, base, vile spawn of Hades.” There are always plenty of wise persons – journalists, bloggers, academics, the politically ambitious – who are eager to help out by sticking one or the other label (or both) on every politician, policy, or idea that comes into view. We call this system a polity, and it makes for great fun when it comes time for an election or a revolution or a new technology of unconstrained self-expression." Is that right on, (no pun intended) or what?

"Anonymous said...A lot of these civil service reinstatements might probably be mute issues if these agencies would start filing criminal charges when the elements of a criminal offense are present. And prosecutors when then have to carry their end once the charge(s) are filed.

1/17/2011 12:27:00 PM"

Couldn't have said it better myself. Once the little crooks have a felony conviction on their ass...will be a lot harder to reward them and keep it hidden

Zeety -It's not just cops who are the real criminals. Prosecutors, judges, parole officers and people who run crime labs are just as bad. Defense attorneys don't really defend suspects so they also fit this category. I don't want to leave out correctional officers. The Texas Supreme Court is also unfair to suspects. These are the real criminals!

And watch this case of the American Indian in Seattle who was murdered by a cocksucking cop for no good reason.

Watch that video and see how the cop shoots an innocent person in the back for no good reason, and then tries to justify it because he was carving a piece of wood with a legal three inch knife.

Now all the cops are defending this piece of shit instead of excoriating him as they should. The cops clearly murdered an innocent man. It's time to be done with this nonsese of pulling a gun and shooting anyone you don't particularly happen to like.

Southern, daily and good for you

Grits for Breakfast looks at the Texas criminal justice system, with a little politics and whatever
else suits the author's fancy thrown in. All opinions are my own. The facts belong to everybody. Who is this guy?

"I always tell people interested in these issues that your blog is the most important news source, and have had high-ranking corrections officials tell me they read it regularly."

- Scott Medlock, Texas Civil Rights Project

"a helluva blog"

- Solomon Moore, NY Times criminal justice correspondent

"Congrats on building one of the most read and important blogs on a specific policy area that I've ever seen"

- Donald Lee, Texas Conference of Urban Counties

GFB "is a fact-packed, trustworthy reporter of the weirdness that makes up corrections and criminal law in the Lone Star State" and has "shown more naked emperors than Hans Christian Andersen ever did."

-Attorney Bob Mabry, Woodlands

"Grits really shows the potential of a single-state focused criminal law blog"

- Corey Yung, Sex Crimes Blog

"I regard Grits for Breakfast as one of the most welcome and helpful vehicles we elected officials have for understanding the problems and their solutions."

Tommy Adkisson,Bexar County Commissioner

"dude really has a pragmatic approach to crime fighting, almost like he’s some kind of statistics superhero"